IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JULIA PACKWOOD,

1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

SOPHIA SPELLER,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 335, 2019

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CN18-02246

§ Petition No. 18-21749

§ 

§

§

 Submitted: January 24, 2020

 Decided: April 2, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 

the Court that: 

(1) The respondent below-appellant, Julia Packwood (“the Maternal 

Grandmother”), filed this appeal from a Family Court order, dated July 8, 2019, 

granting the petition for third-party visitation filed by the petitioner-below appellee, 

Sophia Speller (“the Stepmother”). We find no error or abuse of discretion in the 

Family Court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the Family Court’s judgment.

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2

(2) Nadine Speller (“the Child”), who was born in 2008, is the daughter of 

Iris Robbins (“the Mother”) and Tom Speller (“the Father”).

2

 The Mother suffers

multiple sclerosis and lives with the Maternal Grandmother. Until August 2017, the 

Child lived with the Mother and the Maternal Grandmother and had visitation with 

the Father. The Father, who was battling cancer since 2013, lived with the 

Stepmother. 

(3) In August 2017, after the Mother quarreled with the Maternal 

Grandmother and moved out of her house, everyone agreed that the Child should 

live primarily with the Father and the Stepmother. The Father, despite his declining 

health, married the Stepmother in December 2017. In February 2018, the Family 

Court entered a custody order in which the Father and the Mother agreed to joint 

custody with the Child living with the Father during the week and visiting the Mother 

on the weekends. The Father died in March 2018. After the Father’s death, the 

Child returned to live with the Mother (who had returned to the Maternal 

Grandmother’s house). 

(4) In July 2018, the Family Court entered a consent order granting the 

Maternal Grandmother guardianship of the Child. The order provided that the 

Mother would retain joint legal custody of the Child with the Maternal Grandmother. 

 

2 We assign pseudonyms to the other relevant family members in this appeal.
3

On July 27, 2018, the Stepmother filed a petition for weekly overnight visitation 

with the Child. The Mother and the Maternal Grandmother opposed the petition. 

(5) The Family Court held a hearing on the Stepmother’s petition on March 

7, 2019. The Family Court heard testimony from the Stepmother, two of her friends, 

the Mother, and the Maternal Grandmother. On March 11, 2019, the Family Court 

interviewed the Child.

(6) In its July 8, 2019 order, the Family Court found that that the 

Stepmother had a substantial and positive relationship with the Child before the 

Father’s death, visitation with the Stepmother was in the Child’s best interest, the 

Stepmother had demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the objections 

to visitation were unreasonable, and the Stepmother had demonstrated, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that visitation would not substantially interfere with 

the Mother’s relationship with the Child. The Family Court granted the 

Stepmother’s petition and awarded her visitation with the Child from Friday evening 

to Sunday evening every other weekend. This appeal followed. 

(7) This Court’s review of a Family Court decision includes a review of 

both the law and the facts.3 Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

4

 Factual 

findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.5 To obtain 

 

3 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006).

4

Id.

5

Id.
4

third-party visitation, the Stepmother first had to establish that she had a substantial 

and positive prior relationship with the Child.6 She then had to establish that such 

visitation would be in the Child’s best interest under 13 Del. C. § 722.7 Finally, in 

light of the objections to visitation, the Stepmother had to demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that the objections were unreasonable and by a preponderance 

of the evidence that visitation would not substantially interfere with the parent/child 

relationship.8

(8) The Maternal Grandmother’s arguments on appeal may be summarized 

as follows: (i) the Family Court erred in finding that the Stepmother had a longstanding relationship with the Child; (ii) the Family Court misstated facts; and (iii) 

the interview with the Child reveals that the Family Court judge was biased. These 

arguments are without merit.

(9) At the March 7, 2019 hearing, the Stepmother offered testimony, as 

well as leases from 2014 to 2016 that contained both her and the Father’s names, to 

support her claim that she had a long-standing, positive relationship with the Father 

and the Child dating back to 2013. According to the testimony of the Mother and 

the Maternal Grandmother, the Stepmother did not resume her relationship with the 

Father or meet the Child until 2016. They also downplayed any relationship that the

 

6

13 Del. C. § 2410(a)(1).

7

13 Del. C. § 2412(a)(1). 

8

13 Del. C. § 2412(a)(2)(d).
5

Stepmother had with the Child. When the determination of facts turns on a question 

of the credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of witnesses 

appearing before the trier of fact, we will not substitute our opinion for the trier of 

fact.

9

 It was well-within the Family Court’s discretion to find the testimony of the 

Stepmother’s witnesses concerning the duration and extent of her relationship with 

the Child more credible than the testimony of the Maternal Grandmother and 

Grandmother. The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that the 

Stepmother had a substantial and positive previous relationship with the Child.

(10) The Maternal Grandmother next contends that the Family Court 

misstated certain facts. Most of the alleged misstatements are based on the Family 

Court’s acceptance of testimony from witnesses other than the Maternal 

Grandmother and the Mother. As previously stated, we will not substitute our 

judgment for that of the trier of fact on issues of witness credibility.10 The Maternal 

Grandmother is correct that there was no testimony at the March 7, 2019 hearing to 

support the Family Court’s statement that the Stepmother immediately called to 

notify her of the Father’s death, but this mistake is minor and not material to the 

Family Court’s conclusions. 

 

9 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).

10 See supra n.9.
6

(11) Finally, the Maternal Grandmother argues that the Child interview 

reveals that the Family Court judge was biased. She contends that the Family Court 

ignored the Child’s statements that she did not miss the Stepmother or want to see 

her and pressured the Child to say otherwise. A review of the entire transcript, not 

just the portions selected by the Maternal Grandmother, refutes the Maternal 

Grandmother’s claim. The Child’s comments reflect that her paternal grandmother, 

the Mother, and the Maternal Grandmother regularly shared their negative views and 

comments about the Stepmother with her. The Child did initially claim not to miss 

the Stepmother or want to see her, but then made it clear that she well-aware of her 

relatives’ opposition to visitation. When the Family Court asked the Child what she 

wanted, the Child volunteered that she would like to alternate her time between the 

Maternal Grandmother and the Stepmother—one week with one and then one week 

with the other. The transcript does not reflect that the Family Court judge was biased

or pressuring the Child, but that she was trying to understand the feelings and wishes 

of a child who had recently lost her father and who did not want to upset her family 

members. The Maternal Grandmother’s claims concerning the Family Court judge 

are without merit.

(12) Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the Family Court order granting visitation to the 
7

Stepmother should be affirmed. The Family Court correctly applied the law and did 

not abuse its discretion in granting the Stepmother’s petition for visitation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice